[Distutils] Q about best practices now (or near future)

Vinay Sajip vinay_sajip at yahoo.co.uk
Thu Jul 18 20:08:25 CEST 2013

Marcus Smith <qwcode <at> gmail.com> writes:

> I think it's still useful to have pip vendor just pkg_resources (as
> pip.pkg_resources). It's easy, it gives you enough to install wheels,
> and it's not the only thing you would do. 
> I agree.  there's 2 problems to be solved here
> 1) making pip a self-sufficient wheel installer  (which requires some 
internal pkg_resources equivalent)
> 2) removing the user headache of a setuptools build *dependency* for 
practically all current pypi distributions
> for #2, we have a few paths I think
> 1) bundle setuptools  (and have pip install "pkg_resources" for console 
scripts, if it existed as a separate project)
> 2) bundle setuptools (and rewrite the console script wrapper logic to not 
need pkg_resources?)
> 3) dynamic install of setuptools from wheel when pip needs to instal 
sdists (which is 99.9% of the time, so this feels a bit silly)
> 4) just be happy that the pip bootstrap/bundle efforts will alleviate the 
pain in new versions of python (by pre-installing setuptools?)

If setuptools changes the script generation, the need for pkg_resources is 
gone at least from that part of the picture.

Perhaps you're forgetting that there already is an internal pkg_resources 
equivalent in my pip-distlib branch - this is a pkg_resources compatibility 
shim using pip.vendor.distlib which passed all the pip tests when it was 
submitted as a PR.


Vinay Sajip

More information about the Distutils-SIG mailing list